"Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase." (Janice Rogers Brown)

Monday, May 23, 2005

The latest abortion case for the Supreme Court

I found this through Drudge, although I suspect it will likely lead most MSM news headlines tonight and tomorrow. The case, discussed here, will test the right of New Hampshire to allow a girl less than eighteen-years-old to have an abortion without her parents' knowledge. Pro-aborts object to the law because it does not include the explicit "life and health" loophole that liberal courts have generally driven Mac trucks through. ("The girl might get depressed if she has a baby. Abort the little blob!") The state of New Hampshire contends that since state courts have automatically ruled that every piece of legislation governing abortions in New Hampshire are subject to the "life and health" exemption, then this law will automatically be limited on that account even though such an exception is not written in the actual text of the statute.

This smells fishy.

I believe that what New Hampshire wants is a court ruling that every law they pass now or in the future regarding abortion will automatically be limited by an unwritten "life and health" exception.

Depending on the will of the court, a ruling might even be handed down stating that any law nationwide which governs the the practice of abortion will be limited by a "life and health" exemption. If that happens, then there will exist no legal way to limit abortions outside of a reversal of Supreme Court opinion or, otherwise, the passage of a constitutional amendment. That is, I suspect that another fundamental right is about to be discovered in the "penumbra of the Constitution."

The only good outcome for Pro-lifers in this case would be for the Supremes to uphold the law and explicitly state that since no "Life and Health" clause is written in, then no such exemption is implied.